Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ved Prakash And Anr vs State on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLR-183/1999]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 183/1999
Ved Prakash And Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HSS Kharlia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
08/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1997 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 1999.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against judgment dated
06.10.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Sadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case
No.196/97 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted accused
Jagdish & Ved Prakash for offence under Sections 323 and 326/34
(Downloaded on 12/04/2022 at 08:23:49 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-183/1999]
IPC and has acquitted them from Section 447 IPC and sentenced
them as follows :-
326/34 IPC : 02 years RI and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 03 months SI.
323 IPC : 03 months RI and a fine of Rs.200/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 15 days SI.
An appeal was preferred against the aforementioned
judgment, in which, learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, No.1, Sri Ganganagar passed a judgment dated
08.03.1999 in Criminal Appeal No.20/1999 and partly allowed the
appeal and set aside the judgment dated 06.10.1998 to the extent
that it acquitted Ved Prakash and Jagdish for offences under
sections 323 IPC and 326/34 IPC respectively, and reduced the
sentence as follows :
Ved Prakash
326 IPC : 06 months RI and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 01 month SI.
Jagdish
323 IPC : Fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 01 month SI.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further
submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-
petitioners was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated
14.05.1999 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.54/1999.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by them.
(Downloaded on 12/04/2022 at 08:23:49 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-183/1999]
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC
678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused
on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (Supra)
"...considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered
both financial hardship and mental agony and also
considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far
back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
8. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioners Ved Prakash and
Jagdish for the offences under Sections 323 & 326/34 IPC
respectively, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the
period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
(Downloaded on 12/04/2022 at 08:23:49 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-183/1999]
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
30-Nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
